ABDUL RASHEED Vs. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Preparation of select list for appointment of officers and servants of Cooperative Societies scheduled under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 is the duty of the Kerala Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) with effect from 27.10.1995, the date of commencement of the Kerala Public Service Commission (Additional Functions as respects certain Societies) Act, 1996 (Act V of 1996). R.187 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules provides for reservation of 50% of the vacancies in apex societies to the employees of the member societies. The said Rule contemplates reservation to those employees having a minimum regular service of three years in any of the cadre and having the required qualification for the notified post. The Commission stipulates that the experience should be in the same cadre. In the instant case recruitment is to the post of peon / watchman and the Commission insists that the experience of the incumbents who were employees of the member societies should be in the same cadre of peon / watchman and that is the dispute raised in these Original Petitions.

(2.) The Commission invited application as per Ext. P2 notification dated 26.10.1999. The facts (OP No. 18324 of 2002) are as follows: The notification consists of two parts. Part I is intended for direct recruitment from open market and part 2 is for recruitment from among the employees working in the affiliated societies. It is not in dispute that the recruitment is for all the District Cooperative Banks in the State. Note (1) under item (4) as it originally stood provided that the recruitment is subject to R.186 and 187 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules. R.186 provides for qualifications, in the instant case 7th standard. R.187 reads as follows:

(3.) Though Ext. P2 notification contained the Note as stated above regarding the application of R.186 and 187 of the Rules and the purport of the rule being what is stated above, while prescribing the qualifications in the notification, under item (7)(c) it was stipulated that the candidate should have three years experience in the same cadre. Consequently, as per Ext. P3 the Commission issued erratum notification deleting Note (1) under item (4), the Note regarding the application of R.186 and 187 of the Rules. In otherwords, in view of Ext. P3 notification dated 29.3.2000, Ext. P2 notification should be taken to have stipulated that the incumbents should have three years experience in the same cadre. Question is whether the Commission is justified in restricting the field.